Let's don't overcomplicate this. The easy way to get back to big city marathons is this...... Test everyone before the race.

IF BAA could stagger the starts for the non-elites (say 30 people on the line at a time, each group starting 20 seconds after the previous one), they could accommodate 5400 runners each hour. They could just hold each small group back until they have 20 seconds of clearance (like cars at a red light, once it turns green). Everything would be based on the chip time, like it is for most runners anyway. Some could start at 7:00 and others as late as 10:00--most would be in the more doable middle hours. Or, if the organizers and city are hell-bent enough on holding the event to entertain two days of nightmare logistics, they could even split the field in two and do something similar over a two day period (Sunday and Monday). Obviously, logistically, this would have to be a last-ditch solution, but it is doable with enough resources deployed.

Don't test anybody. People that are elderly or preexisting conditionous stay home. The marathon will advance herd immunity and soon the vulnerable people can come outside.

What about only allowing people who tested positive for antibodies more than 3 weeks before the race?

Of course, assuming there is a consensus that antibodies provide some protection, and that the tests are fairly accurate

Is it really that important for us to have these mega ego trips? Cancel the races this year and then let them come back with less entrants.

The selfishness of some of these posts that sounds like someones life is ruined because they dont have an opportunity to go out and run/walk a 4 hour marathon is just embarrassing.

Spend your time helping someone else instead of constant complaining on this site.

Sarah Williamson wrote:

666666 wrote:

Can't get past "Let's don't"...

lololololololol

I know!!!!

So, if 2% of the runners test positive, but are otherwise asymptomatic and raring to race, how do you stop them from showing up and running anyway?

And in hard hit cities like Boston, Chicago and NY, why in the world would you want to bring in a ton of people from out of town to fill restaurants, spread the virus around and undo all the weeks and months of lockdown and social distancing? Plus, the idea that everything will be hunky dory in the fall is beyond optimistic.

I have been a fan of marathons since the late seventies. I love the sport as much as the next guy, but there is no reason to risk the health of millions of people just to have a marathon. Just remember what happened to Philadelphia when they held a giant war bonds parade on St. Patrick's day during the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918.

I got it everyone.

Let's test everyone AFTER the NYC Marathon..as they are waiting in the finishers chutes for their medals...I mean what the hell else are these people doing other than standing there not moving...then by the time they get out of Central Park, their "fast test results" are ready. Tested positive? Now the contact tracers can get to work notifying all 50,000 runners and 2,000,000 spectators they have been potentially exposed to someone with Covid-19.

See, I'm letting people run their marathon AND employing people (the contact tracers).

rojo wrote:

If you have the testing capacity to test everyone before they race, you hold the race (with only those that test negative). Test everyone when they come to pick up their packets a few days before the race. If the testing capacity doesn't allow you to test everyone, then you don't hold the race or only hold it with the # of people you can test. Maybe you add a $50-100 surcharge as I imagine it's not going to be cheap to test all those people (although Covid-tests are supposed to be free).

If your limit is say 5,000 tests a day, you run the first 25,000 people on one weekend (The women's championship) and then do the next 25,000 the next weekend (The men's championship).

I'd also suggest requiring everyone to get tested at home before in the two weeks prior to them showing up.

Thoughts?

/

Don't know where to start with this absurd suggestion, left a couple of my favorite parts in the quote.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get an allocation of testing supplies right now? They are on rations and all currently going to (mostly) populations that are in the highest need (IP med surg admits/non-emergent surgical cases/ OP visits/ED Admits/Nursing Homes/etc.).

In order to test as many people as you are suggesting in a two/three day span, you would need to do a rapid test, which are even harder to get than the non-rapid testing and way less reliable (abbots have a 15% error rate). And the likelihood of 25k people flying together and being both non symptomatic as well as having a low viral load at this point would make finding a positive even more difficult on these rapid tests and contribute to spreading the disease if only a couple people in the corrals have it.

Testing from home, and then getting on a plan were you are going to be surrounded by people is a worthless test. If you don't have it today, then you can easily have it tomorrow.

Sarah Williamson wrote:

666666 wrote:

Can't get past "Let's don't"...

lololololololol

Agreed! This is terrible English!!!

Have you spoken to Drs and nurses? Often it takes multiple tests to get a positive out of an individual. The only way any big race is going to be held is those participating decide that they are not that concerned about infection from the virus and the local jurisdiction allows it to happen.

I would love to run a fall marathon a personally am not concerned about contracting the virus. If it happens it happens, maybe it already has, and I'll probably never know unless I get an antibody test. But I just don't see a big city marathon being allowed this year.

I asked this in another similar thread about Boston: how can one justify using thousands of tests on people who are electing to run a race? Wouldn’t they go to better use on people who truly need to be tested?

The intent is noble. Here are the challenges to overcome in this:

1) Test error rate is roughly 30% in best case. Assuming a 1% positive rate in a sample size of 30,000, that yields 300 of which 90 go undetected. A multi-test approach can reduce this further but will still leave undetected cases on the table.

2) Points of infection for a big city marathon weekend are high. Using Boston as an example and using my personal experience from 2018 when I was there form Friday to Monday, these points include:

a) Trip to Boston (departure airport, flight, BOS)

b) Hotel

c) Restaurants where I dine.

d) BAA 5K

e) Expo

f) Church (blessing of the athletes service)

g) Bus ride

h) Village

i) Start line staging

j) Course

k) Finish area

l) Trip home (BOS, flight, arrival airport)

m) Any shop in Boston I frequent

n) Any ride on the T or Uber

o) Walking around the city

Even with testing at packet pickup and before, there are just so many opportunities to introduce infection in this case. Do we isolate the marathoners away from the general local population? I would be against that as part of what makes this so special IS the interaction with the local population who shower such love and respect on us who earned that spot.

I would move that if this level of testing is needed as well as huge levels of protection to make a big city marathon happen, the experience will be far less than what it was pre-COVID-19. Give that, it would be WORTH IT to hold off from Boston or any other big city marathon until there is no longer a need for extreme mitigation efforts to make it happen.

The idea is noble. I do appreciate this thoughtful effort as I would LOVE to run Boston this September! I just want to analyze this out to see if it would work, and there are numerous challenges to overcome.

Absolute genius idea. You must speak with the NYRR immediately about his idea! Have everyone gather to pick up their packets in the same place to get tested a few days before the race. The few people that would inevitably be infected spread the virus to those also picking up their packets. None of the people just infected at the packet pickup will test positive. The packet pickup is 3 days before the race, giving the virus enough time to build a viral load capable of spreading but not develop symptoms. Hold the race on day 4 after infection (1 day before average symptoms develop) and likely the highest risk of asymptomatic transmission to others. Bingo, thousands or tens of thousands of new infections which can now be spread back to wherever everyone traveled from! I thought you were trolling us but I think you came up with the perfect plan!

How in God's name did rojo get into any school above community college? He is the poster child for white privilege admissions .

His logic is constantly flawed and he seems to miss basic points. First few can just take 2 weeks to quarantine prior to a race. Secondly, Between the test and the race you can get covid.

Anyone who' run a big city marathon knows they can be very packed the first couple of miles.

Then you have to address all these people using service in a given location and then going back to their homes.

edumacation rulez wrote:

How in God's name did rojo get into any school above community college? He is the poster child for white privilege admissions .

His logic is constantly flawed and he seems to miss basic points. First few can just take 2 weeks to quarantine prior to a race. Secondly, Between the test and the race you can get covid.

.

I agree with this!

Juice Springsteen wrote:

I asked this in another similar thread about Boston: how can one justify using thousands of tests on people who are electing to run a race? Wouldn’t they go to better use on people who truly need to be tested?

By August we should have the testing capacity.

I think it could work for a small local marathon with less than thousand participants. Test everyone the day before, exclude positives.

And make sure that giving the bibs and all the other stuff takes place outside, be it out in the open or in open tents. Transmission is very unlikely under these circumstances.

In the annals of stupid ideas, this is one of the most stupid.

Charlesvdw wrote:

I think it could work for a small local marathon with less than thousand participants. Test everyone the day before, exclude positives.

And make sure that giving the bibs and all the other stuff takes place outside, be it out in the open or in open tents. Transmission is very unlikely under these circumstances.

I think this should be done as an experiment. If lots of people still end up getting infected under these conditions, then don't do it again. There is a lot unknown about how fast the virus spreads in various conditions so it would be a valuable low risk experiment regardless.